Sorry to hear about this. It looks like the rider was quite an asset to the community, more than the driver we can assume. We'll hope that his conscience will bother him too much and he will come in and confess.

__________________

"He who serves all, best serves himself" Jack London

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjforrestal

I don't care if you are on a unicycle, as long as you're not using a motor to get places you get props from me. We're here to support each other. Share ideas, and motivate one another to actually keep doing it.

Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle

Posts: 1,206

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Murder? Possibly, could be but that would require intent something that must be demonstrated with proof.

Gross criminal negligence in the operation of a dangerous machine around other innocent people resulting in a death? Absolutely, it's at least that.

-------------------------------

Find the perp. and hit him with the lower negligance charge that you can be sure of and then start investigating to find if intent can be demonstrated in order to step the charge up to second or first degree. That is how it should be handled in a civilized society, unfortunately we are only a half way civilized society.

Yes the driver is a murderer. The last story says a guys daughter. You could probably bet the farm she was on her cell phone. It is now generally agreed that cell phone use is more dangerous than drunk driving.

ANYONE that hits and runs needs to have their sentence DOUBLED!!!! If that girl is proven to be on her cell phone DOUBLE the sentence again!!!!!

And she drives home, apparently with a smashed windshield, and says, "Daddy.. I hit a deer this morning".

Naturally, I can forgive my children for a lot more than I can other people. But I'd have a hard time with this one.

At least I can glean one lesson from this. If any of my kids, and particularly acquaintances, come to me with a story like this, including some convoluted reason for not calling the police, then I'm not playing the sap. I'm making the call.

Daughter or no, if she hit something SIGNIFICANT, she should be getting out and checking for damage. THAT would have ended the "hit a deer" BS.

"Distracted driving" needs to carry the same penalty as DWI, and hit & run/leaving the scene needs to have some equivalency in penalty as a hate crime. It HAS to be severe -- it is a plain demonstration of callous disregard for human life.

Vehicular Homicide = murder. Even if they charge vehicular manslaughter, still is murder.

The statues you quoted do not support your assertion. They do talk about "traffic related murder", but presumably that would be using a motor vehicle to run somebody over that you wanted dead -- something like that, rather than killing somebody without intending to do so, such as drunks often do.

In general, "homicide" means any illegal killing, with or without intent. But murder requires intent to at least harm the victim. Some states have diluted the term somewhat, such as "DWI murder", but in general murder still requires intent, and no matter how negligent or reckless the one who caused the death was, without intent it's not murder.

Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle

Posts: 1,206

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 6 Post(s)

^ Indeed

But, let us not forget that although it isn't as severe as intentional murder, gross criminal negligence in the operation of a known to be highly dangerous machine around other innocent people resulting in death or severe injury to one or more of them carries its own penalties and the only reason people get away with it when its a car is because of our car centric culture and the resulting willingness to pervert justice. Try the same stunt with a less dangerous machine known as a gun (by statistics people kill way more other people with cars then people people kill other people using guns) and see what happens. Or if you don't want to go there (the gun thing) try the same stunt and have "just an accident" due to being a reckless crane operator and drop a 2-ton load from a construction crane onto the street below and kill a few people when that 2-ton load falling slower then another 2-ton danger known as a car moves hits them and see if they call it "just an accident" and let you off without even a ticket. Loosing your crane operators license for life and not getting jail time in addition would be the best outcome you could expect if the incident was due to you acting reckless. Even just if the cable snapped (with a load within the limit) that would still be partially your fault because as the operator you have to have a partial responsibility to not operate equipment you know is defective and your even supposed to inspect it yourself periodically, its called due diligence.

But for some reason a whole lot of people have some crazy idea that the same thing doesn't apply to cars as well and the operators license to operate one of those dangerous machines around other innocent people. I consider it no different then a crane operators license. You don't F$#& around with a crane, if you do someone is going to get killed and as the licensed operator your responsible for that, same thing for an automobile vehicle. That's the reason you have to have a special license to operate either around other innocent people off your own property.

But, let us not forget that although it isn't as severe as intentional murder, gross criminal negligence in the operation of a known to be highly dangerous machine around other innocent people resulting in death or severe injury to one or more of them carries its own penalties and the only reason people get away with it when its a car is because of our car centric culture and the resulting willingness to pervert justice.... really hard to read run-on sentences....

At the end of the day, civil penalties for negligence do not require intent while criminal penalties often do: e.g. murder (requires "malice aforethought") Gross negligence requires "wanton disregard" IIRC. Still requires a prove up of intent.

I still think the woman should get the book thrown at her. Deer, my ass.

Involved driver had hit another bicyclist in 2011. That victim survived.

Driver was on four scrips including, Neurontin (Nerve Damage), Lisinopril (Kidney), Cymbalta (Depression), Risperdal (Mood) at the time of the incident. Two of which advise against operating a motor vehicle.

Law enforcement is finishing up current investigation and charges should be filed soon.

Link to story here, http://www.nbc4i.com/story/23945980/oshp-suspect-in-fatal-hit-skip-involving-teacher-previously-struck-cyclist

Just a few miles from my home. Have ridden this road often. Someone was probably impaired by some method, alcohol, texting or something.

Yes I considered this murder. Special hell for hit & run people. Cowards!!!
.

While premeditation would have to be proved for 1st Degree Murder or 1st Degree Intentional Homicide. Manslaughter doesn't have as high of a bar for proof. I hope the motorist sees' the inside of a cell for years to come, and not a weak sentence like 15-20yrs., more like 60yrs. in prison.

I have sent an email to the county prosecutor giving my opinion to give her the maximum for this crime.

Check out the lame showing of crocodile tears and sympathy strokes by using a wheel chair in the attached video.

I was in attendance during this hearing and am not defending her - just pointing out some facts. I am a cyclist and ride that road virtually every week.

Courtroom is on the 3rd floor of the building. She indicated at she had a partial amputation of one leg and an injury to the other (broken heel). As well a being a diabetic whose numbers were way off their norm.

My question is when is daddy going to get his for cutting out part of the windshield and disposing of it? Who replaces part of a windshield?

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Posts: 30,892

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 904 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by look566 rider

She has pled guilty to two charges.

I have sent an email to the county prosecutor giving my opinion to give her the maximum for this crime.

Minor point. Prosecutors may ask for a maximum sentence, but sentencing is the judge's job, not the prosecutor's. Also, I suspect that the guilty plea was entered after negotiation regarding the sentence. Judges are free to reject negotiated sentences, but rarely do so.

I've got to disagree with the prosecutor giving her involuntary manslaughter. She was stoned on meds that advise against driving. She was willfully not wearing her glasses that are required when she drives. That kind of reckless disregard for human life should warrant the maximum charges and sentence. I hope the judge at least considers what a bag of dirt she is when he sentences her, hopefully to consecutive maximums.

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Posts: 30,892

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 904 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by B. Carfree

I've got to disagree with the prosecutor giving her involuntary manslaughter.....

Unless the murder statutes on Ohio are very different from those in new York, this is the highest charge possible. To charge or prove Murder there would have to be clear intent to do so. I doubt he could prove she had a grudge against her victim, or was just out hunting by car, so There's no intent as defined by the law.

Under the law, this crime is comparable with discharging a firearm randomely in a crowded area and killing someone or manslaughter, not murder.